Appeal No. 2005-1093 Page 6
Application No. 10/058,200
In regard to the obviousness rejection, we note that the examiner has not
explained how the subject matter of claim 95 would have been obvious in view of the
disclosure of Reynolds, therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
The appellants argue that Reynolds does not disclose a process as recited in
claim 90 which comprises at least one heating station as recited in claim 96. The
examiner relies on Reynolds thermosetting adhesive on disc 42 (page 3, lines 125 to
130) for teaching the heating station limitation. We agree with the appellants that
Reynold does not disclose a heating station which is “one of the processing stations”
which is recited in claim 90. As we stated above, we are of the opinion that the drum 28
is the single conveyor which supplies the filter tubes to the processing stations. Drum
28 does not convey the filter tubes to the disc 42. Rather, the tubes are conveyed to
disc 42 by drum 38 (Fig. 5c). Therefore, in our view, the subject matter of claim 96 is
not anticipated by Reynolds.
In regard to the obviousness rejection, we note that the examiner has not
explained how the subject matter of claim 96 would have been obvious in view of the
disclosure of Reynolds, therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
The appellants argue that Reynolds does not disclose the subject matter of
claims 98 and 99. We agree with the examiner that Reynold discloses a lever element
32 with a bore therein 32a which slides to dispense granular filtering material (Fig. 4).
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 98 and 99.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007